Removal of suspension bridge in Pemi Wilderness

Dr. Dasypodidae said:

I am pretty sure that the bridge over Thoreau Brook at the upper end is also inside the Wilderness boundary, although perhaps just barely.

Click to expand...

Somewhat the reverse, the Ethan Pond Trail is the AT which is just outside the Wilderness in this area, see map P. 39

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi.../pdf_documents/PLAN_PDF/E_PLAN_wilderness.pdf

I sort of feel stupid in asking this since I know I’m missing some obvious point. But anyway, here’s my dim-witted question.

The damaged suspension bridge over the Dry River (on the Dry River Trail) is well within the “Presidential Range, Dry River Wilderness” area. And, according to a very fine posting by Jazzbo a few months ago (see link below), this bridge is going to be replaced this spring. Soooo, why would this damaged bridge in a wilderness area be replaced, whereas the suspension bridge over the East Branch will not be refurbished/replaced?

Here is the link to Jazzbo's posting. You need to read down toward the end of the responses to get the gist of what I'm specifically referring to.
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25612

I believe it has to do with the fact that the Dry River Bridge is crucial to crossing safely, whereas, since the East Side Trail can be used to access that side of the river, the Pemi bridge, while convenient, is not necessary.

I like the idea of this...a little more rusticness and challenge is a good thing IMO.

Mike Dickerman column on bridge removal

Mike Dickerman features the proposed bridge removal in his column today in Foster's Daily Democrat. The piece includes comments from Tom Giles, a WMNF representative.

sardog1 said:

Mike Dickerman features the proposed bridge removal in his column today in Foster's Daily Democrat. The piece includes comments from Tom Giles, a WMNF representative.

Click to expand...

Thanks, SD, this is a well-written and considered discussion of the issue. Mike's point that resonates most for me is that eliminating a trail in the Pemi, which is part of the bridge removal project, will have the effect of concentrating traffic on the remaining trail. This will not enhance the "wilderness feel" of the Pemi, which I believe should be the overall guiding philosophy. It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Waumbek said:

It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Click to expand...

I read Dickerman's column this morning and thought the very same thing -- the unintended consequences of removing the bridge.

Waumbek said:

Mike's point that resonates most for me is that eliminating a trail in the Pemi, which is part of the bridge removal project, will have the effect of concentrating traffic on the remaining trail. This will not enhance the "wilderness feel" of the Pemi, which I believe should be the overall guiding philosophy. It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Click to expand...

The Forest Plan specifically addresses the question of dispersing vs. concentrating use, and decides that, throughout the forest, the emphasis should be on concentrating.

(Yes, I have read most of the Plan...it's a pain in the neck, but it's the context for management decisions in the WMNF, and I find that usually the decisions are careful to point out how the Plan and any controlling legislation informed the process.)

I've sent in my comments as follows:

I am a hiker, AMC hike leader, and cross-country skier. I am not in favor of these bridges being eliminated. If they are not safe, they should be replaced. Whether or not the structure of a bridge confirms with the plans now in place, they are important elements and were in place before current thinking. People do use them and want that freedom of access to continue, from what I’ve been hearing in conversations.

When I’m feeling sarcastic, I wonder if your organization is just thinking about what it can “do” next rather than preserve and protect. Sometimes in my office or home I move furniture around for just that reason. Something to do.

The land has seen use for decades. The use it is seeing now is better than the early days and I’m extremely grateful for that. Please let the use continue by keeping the waterways passable.

Personally, I am more sensitive to and “in touch” with Mother Nature because I’ve experienced the beauty, wildness, chaos, patterns, smells, sounds of that association.

If I can just make a broad observation, for whatever it is worth:

Over the long history of the Forest Service (and basically managed protected areas in the US), it seems fair to say that laws have generally served hikers pretty well as far as providing a road-free, motor-free, timber-harvest-free mountain recreation experience. And these rules are followed, and enforced, though many groups of people might be upset. Sometimes, these rules are at odds with certain recreation traditions or even financial goals. (Want the Pemi rangers to not only save government money but also *make* money? We could discuss where to put the skid roads and which trees to high-grade out of the forest.) Indeed, this is the very reason we have the rules, because sometimes traditional practices or financial reasoning (at least in the short term) didn't preserve the mountains many of us want.

For reasons both philosophical and pragmatic, hikers who would ask the Forest Service to make exceptions to the existing rules for the sake of "convenience," "tradition," "cost-benefit" or "safety" might consider whether these values are truly what they want put above all else when it comes time to make the next decision about the future of these mountains.

cushetunk said:

For reasons both philosophical and pragmatic, hikers who would ask the Forest Service to make exceptions to the existing rules for the sake of "convenience," "tradition," "cost-benefit" or "safety" might consider whether these values are truly what they want put above all else when it comes time to make the next decision about the future of these mountains.

Click to expand...

Very good points. The counter-point is that this is the beginning of the erosion of access to the Pemi. Once this access is gone, then there is less need to have the next nearest access point, and so on, until there is no access left.

It's the same things that gets people upset over the seat belt law. It is viewed as the beginning of the erosion of personal liberty and it upsets the current balance of power, giving the enforcers (police) another reason to pull over a car.

In the simplest terms, you can see what is happening with a pair of toddlers and a pile of toys - toddler A wants what toddler B has and toddler B gets upset if it is taken away.

Tim

If you want the benefits of federal "wilderness" designation under the Wilderness Act, then you are obliged to accept the terms of the Act. If you want something different, then lobby Congress to have it re-designated as something else, e.g., a National Forest or a National Recreation Area. (Before you do, you might want to go see what is happening to USFS and BLM lands out West that do not enjoy the protections of the Wilderness Act.)

cushetunk said:

For reasons both philosophical and pragmatic, hikers who would ask the Forest Service to make exceptions to the existing rules for the sake of "convenience," "tradition," "cost-benefit" or "safety" might consider whether these values are truly what they want put above all else when it comes time to make the next decision about the future of these mountains.

Click to expand...

I opposed the Wilderness management guidelines when they were proposed, I feel that the Sierra Club lobbyists essentially snuck them past the hiking community who would mostly have objected if they had known. This project is an example of what most hikers would object to in the rules and why the rules should be changed.

sardog1 said:

If you want the benefits of federal "wilderness" designation under the Wilderness Act, then you are obliged to accept the terms of the Act. If you want something different, then lobby Congress to have it re-designated as something else, e.g., a National Forest or a National Recreation Area.

Click to expand...

IMHO it should have been a Scenic Area like Mt Chocorua or designated for non-motorized recreation like the Appalachian Trail. Unfortunately it is too late to undesignate the area as the enivironmental lobbyists nationwide won't give up even a sliver. Fortunately that's not necessary as all that is needed is to locally revise the guidelines for that particular Wilderness. In Vermont for instance they still build new leantos in Wilderness because the GMC made sure the guidelines were written to allow it.

I'm all for taking the "wilderness" designation off of the Pemi or any other wilderness area in NH for that matter. I have never understood the reasoning for "preserving" an area which had trains and logging trucks in it only 70 years ago. This isn't exactly a prestine, untouched forest here. Granted, I don't think I would enjoy looking at large clear cuts on the side of Owls Head, but I think the forestry practices in place now would not let that happen, wilderness or not.

bikehikeskifish said:

Very good points. The counter-point is that this is the beginning of the erosion of access to the Pemi. Once this access is gone, then there is less need to have the next nearest access point, and so on, until there is no access left.

Click to expand...

Tim, I see it a little differently. I don't think we're talking about an erosion of access. No one is telling hikers/skiers they can't access the Pemi. They're just removing a convenient means of access. Hikers and skiers can still go where they want anywhere in the Pemi. It just may be a bit less convenient.

FWIW, I'd like the bridge to be repaired, not removed, but it seems to me that under the current Wilderness management guidelines, that is unlikely unless someone can come up with a better reason to keep the bridge than what I've heard so far, i.e. convenience, tradition, etc.

To your point, though, if there are those who don't want to see other hiker conveniences disappear, then it sounds like folks should lobby to have the management guidelines changed.

1HappyHiker said:

The damaged suspension bridge over the Dry River (on the Dry River Trail) is well within the “Presidential Range, Dry River Wilderness” area. And, according to a very fine posting by Jazzbo a few months ago (see link below), this bridge is going to be replaced this spring. Soooo, why would this damaged bridge in a wilderness area be replaced, whereas the suspension bridge over the East Branch will not be refurbished/replaced?

Click to expand...

John ... The terrain is quite different for the Pemi Bridge compared to Dry River Bridge. It's comparitively easy to keep walking up either side of the East Branch to find better opportunities to cross, but as you recall it's challanging to whack up or down the Dry river due to way steep valley walls crowd either side of the Dry River. Just ask the people who wander into Dry River off the Southern Presidentials. Forest service report does say hikers will be less able to hike loops and will do more out & back hikes. Wishful thinking???

Historically more people have died trying to cross the Dry River in high water. The Forest Service report on Dry River Bridge comments on something like 3 people drowned in one year in the Dry River not long before that bridge was built. God forbid such incidents might occur with more frequency on the East Branch should the Forest Service not replace these bridges.

Jazzbo said:

John ... The terrain is quite different for the Pemi Bridge compared to Dry River Bridge. It's comparitively easy to keep walking up either side of the East Branch to find better opportunities to cross, but as you recall it's challanging to whack up or down the Dry river due to way steep valley walls crowd either side of the Dry River. Just ask the people who wander into Dry River off the Southern Presidentials. Forest service report does say hikers will be less able to hike loops and will do more out & back hikes. Wishful thinking???

Historically more people have died trying to cross the Dry River in high water. The Forest Service report on Dry River Bridge comments on something like 3 people drowned in one year in the Dry River not long before that bridge was built. God forbid such incidents might occur with more frequency on the East Branch should the Forest Service not replace these bridges.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ray! I do understand what you’re saying, and certainly have no disagreement with it. I guess where I’m still hung up is that there seems to be an unequal application of “standards”. I’m probably missing some subtle point but here’s where I need some help in sorting this out in my mind.

Beginning on page 5 of the WMNF Wilderness Management Plan, the various “Wilderness Zones” are defined. One of these zones is called “Zone D”. For wilderness areas in Zone D, it’s stated that: “Bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection.” When I look at the map on page 39 of this Management Plan it seems to me that the suspension bridge in-question is located within a Zone D area.

Then I look at the map on page 37 of the Management Plan which shows the Presidential - Dry River Wilderness. In looking at this map, it appears to me that the proposed bridge replacement over the Dry River is also in a Zone D area.

So, if in fact the Dry River Suspension Bridge and the Pemi Suspension Bridge are both in a Zone D area, then I’m sort of confused as to why the same standard isn’t being applied to both bridges? However, I suspect that perhaps the answer might have something to do with the Forest Service having the latitude to apply the “standards” to tailor-fit each situation. And if that is the case, then I guess that’s where your explanation comes into play.

1HappyHiker said:

For wilderness areas in Zone D, it’s stated that: “Bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection.”

Click to expand...

The distinction made by the USFS is that the Dry River bridge is critical for public safety (because there is no reasonable alternative for getting to the other side), while the Pemi bridge does not meet the requirement for public saftey or resource protection (because the East Side trail provides access to the other side of the river).

RoySwkr said:

... In Vermont for instance they still build new leantos in Wilderness because the GMC made sure the guidelines were written to allow it.

Click to expand...

Smart bunch, those Vermonter's, eh? (Just got back from a week in B.C - am practicing my "eh's?")

psmart said:

The distinction made by the USFS is that the Dry River bridge is critical for public safety (because there is no reasonable alternative for getting to the other side), while the Pemi bridge does not meet the requirement for public saftey or resource protection (because the East Side trail provides access to the other side of the river).

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. I honestly do see what you are saying, and have no issue with it. Personally, I’m very pleased and in full agreement with the decision to restore the damaged bridge over the Dry River. And to a certain extent, I can sort of see the rationale for removal of the suspension bridge in the Pemi. However, using a rationale similar to that being used for removal of the Pemi bridge, I can’t help but be a bit facetious by laying out the following fictitious scenario for removal of the Dry River Bridge at some point in the future.

Fictitious Scenario: Although the Dry River Bridge was convenient, once it is removed, hikers can still access the eastern side of the Dry River Wilderness from Route 302 via the Davis Path or the Mt. Langdon Trail. And, hikers can access the western side of the Dry River Wilderness via a variety of trails (Mt. Eisenhower Trail, etc). Furthermore, there are two access points where (at low water) hikers can cross to the other side of the Dry River (via either the Mt. Clinton or the Mt. Eisenhower Trail)!